YOUR ULTRA BRIEF

• Efforts to require at least two-person crews in the freight rail industry lack a safety justification. They ignore the successful use of single-person crews in the US and globally.
• Crew size regulations disrupt collective bargaining and hinder the rail industry’s ability to compete with less climate-friendly transportation methods.
• Crew size regulations also impede innovation and harm small businesses.

In April 2024, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued the “Train Crew Size Safety Requirement” final rule. This was done despite a lack of evidence linking crew size to rail safety. The FRA previously abandoned a similar proposal in 2019 after failing to justify a safety need.

Rather than pursuing data-driven safety solutions, the FRA is reverting to outdated policies.

These policies disrupt the collective bargaining process. Collective bargaining is a long-standing framework for determining staffing decisions through direct negotiations between rail carriers and unions.

Railroads have consistently prioritized safety through advanced employee training, private investments in infrastructure, and cutting-edge technology. These efforts have delivered tangible results. Since 2005, on-duty fatalities have declined by 27%, and railroads invest billions annually to strengthen safety and reliability. However, the FRA’s intervention undermines this proven approach by imposing unnecessary regulations. These regulations ignore decades of progress and industry-driven improvements.

Over the last 15 years, the FRA and other safety regulators have extensively evaluated the crew size issue. They have never found any data showing two-person crews are safer than one-person crews:

• In 2009, the FRA stated there was “no factual evidence to support [a] prohibition against one-person crew operations.”
• In 2015, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said “There is insufficient data to demonstrate that accidents are avoided by having a second qualified person in the cab.” The NTSB has investigated numerous accidents in which both qualified individuals in a two-person crew made mistakes and failed to avoid an accident.”
• In 2016, the FRA stated that it could not “provide reliable or conclusive statistical data to suggest whether one-person crew operations are generally safer or less safe than multiple-person crew operations.”
• In 2019, the FRA concluded that “Accident/incident data does not support a train crew staffing regulation.”

Collective bargaining maintains safety while allowing railroads to modernize.

Collective bargaining has always established crew staffing — the number of persons in the cab of a locomotive. This is a longstanding process used by railroads and rail labor organizations to negotiate wages, benefits, and work rules. Railroads maintain that crew staffing issues should remain part of the collective bargaining process.

Railroads commit to negotiating in good faith with rail labor organizations. Together, railroads and unions can balance the complex, competing interests in the crew-size debate. This includes the purported safety concerns that the unions have routinely raised as a reason for resisting any railroad staffing changes prompted by improvements in technology.

Railroad safety has dramatically improved in recent decades due to freight rail’s massive investments in infrastructure and technology. Freight railroad crew sizes have reduced from five to three to two people. This reduction follows collective bargaining agreements with labor unions under the procedures outlined in the Railway Labor Act. These reductions have coincided with technological improvements. They have improved safety and reduced incidents caused by human error.

Crew-size mandates act as blunt instruments, limiting railroads and unions from resolving complex staffing and scheduling issues. These decisions should remain with the parties engaged in collective bargaining.

PTC is fully operational.

Positive Train Control is fully operational on tens of thousands of miles of rail lines throughout the country. This system of technologies monitors speed restrictions, communications and track signals. It automatically stops a train to prevent certain train-to-train collisions and other accidents caused by human error.

Today, many freight train conductors are stationed on locomotives even though most of their work is “ground-based.” Their duties include inspecting the train and preparing it for a trip. Railroads seek the flexibility to continue working with rail labor under existing collective bargaining procedures. They aim to identify when the presence of PTC or other equivalent technologies could allow for a redeployment of crew members without jeopardizing rail safety.

Ground-based conductors would have a better quality of life.

The industry aims to shift to a ground-based conductor model, strategically stationing conductors where they are most needed. This approach enables them to respond quickly to unforeseen events while improving both work quality and work-life balance.

The ground-based conductors would primarily focus on planned ground service duties, such as servicing trains at scheduled stops and managing routine activities. Ground-based conductors will handle unplanned events, which make up only a small part of a conductor’s duties, on an infrequent basis. In rare cases requiring ground service—such as fixing mechanical issues or responding to wayside detector alerts—these conductors will inspect the problem and, if necessary, resolve it, including setting out the affected railcar.

Instead of assigning an onboard conductor to every through freight train, railroads would dispatch strategically located ground-based conductors to handle rare unplanned events. This transition enhances efficiency and eliminates the need for conductors to walk long distances behind trains to reach service locations.

This shift in the conductor’s role is well-timed, as the industry is making efforts to attract more individuals to careers in freight railroads. By reimagining the conductor’s role to provide better work-life balance and increased efficiency, the industry hopes to make it even more appealing to prospective employees. Ground-based conductors can use trucks to travel directly to a train’s location, ensuring a faster response to service needs and improving their overall quality of life.

Crew size negatively impacts small businesses.

The U.S. Small Business Administration — an independent agency of the federal government that aids, counsels, assists and protects the interests of small business concerns — sent a letter to FRA in 2023. This letter urged it to revise and republish its initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) on its proposed two-person train crew rule. According to them, the agency “significantly understated” the potential impact on small businesses.

The SBA raised concerns that the FRA not only underestimated the cost to short line railroads but also how many short lines the proposal would impact. According to the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), there are 420 short lines operating with one crew member in the locomotive. Contrarily, the FRA estimated that there are only seven short line railroads with one crew member in the locomotive.